1. Bush in his news conference implied that failure in Iraq would mean that the USA will be attcked by AQ.
- That implied link again.
- What happens if AQ hit the US while they are still in IZ

2. The Supreme Commander can order his troops to stay in IZ but the people i.e. congress control the funds.
- The US will stay until they achieve their aims
- The US under a new congress change the rules and threaten to or stop funding the IZ campaign.

3. The arguement put forward by the congressmen is that the IZ government is dependent on the US and until they fear that the US are going to leave they will not form a strong government.
- I concur.

4. If the threat of withdrawl is made will their be an Army Coup that then imposes order?
- Doubtful as the Army not that strong.

The Solution IMHO (in chronological order) is 400,000 troops, curfews, disarming the population and a strong military government. (Logical)

OR

Divide the country into 3, get the fcuk out and tell Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Jordan that is their problem! (Blue Sky thinking)

Partition makes sense when you consider the similarites between Iraq and Yugoslavia.

Both fairly recently formed almost artificial countries, held together only by the iron will of a dictator. Both fragmented spectacularly along ethnic lines, becoming ungovernable. Huge levels of violence between ethnic groups.

I guess there would be an unseemly scramble for oil revenues, but we all know it is a Govt heavily influenced by US. Shouldn't be beyond the realms of the US negotiators to hammer out a deal. What do you do with Baghdad though?

I guess there would be an unseemly scramble for oil revenues, but we all know it is a Govt heavily influenced by US. Shouldn't be beyond the realms of the US negotiators to hammer out a deal. What do you do with Baghdad though?